= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Jiro comments on Diseased thinking: dissolving questions about disease - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (343)
No, there isn't any real difference from that, which is why the example demonstrates a flaw in the Categorical Imperative. Any non-universal law can be expressed as a universal law. "The law is 'you can rob', but the law should only be applied to Jiro" is a non-universal law, but "The law is 'if (I am Jiro) then rob else do nothing' and this law is applied to everyone" is a universal law that has the same effect. Because of this ability to express one in terms of the other, saying "you should only do things if you would like for them to be universally applied" fails to provide any constraints at all, and is useless.
Of course, most people don't consider such universal laws to be universal laws, but on the other hand I'm not convinced that they are consistent when they say so--for instance "if (I am convicted of robbery) then put me in jail else nothing" is a law that is of similar form but which most people would consider a legitimate universalizable law.
If the law gives different results for different people doing the same thing, it isn't universal jn the intended sense, which is pretty much the .same as fairness.
"In the intended sense" is not a useful description compared to actually writing down a description. It also may not necessarily even be consistent.
Furthermore, it's clear that most people consider "if (I am convicted of robbery) then put me in jail else nothing" to be a universal law in the intended sense, yet that gives different results for different people (one result for robbers, another result for non-robbers) doing the same thing (nothing, in either case).